Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Wessel, H.-P.: RSWK und RAK - die Geschichte einer unendlichen Annäherung? (2005) 0.03 
    0.025510766 = product of:
  0.05102153 = sum of:
    0.05008138 = weight(_text_:von in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05008138 = score(doc=3666,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.3910559 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
    9.401512E-4 = product of:
      0.0028204536 = sum of:
        0.0028204536 = weight(_text_:a in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0028204536 = score(doc=3666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    "Für die Schlagwortkatalogisierungsregeln ist im Bereich der Ansetzung von Personennamen, Körperschaftsnamen und Titeln, in denen sie sich mit den Formalkatalogisierungsregeln überlappen, eine Konformität mit diesen aus verschiedenen Gründen sehr wünschenswert, wenn nicht geboten."' Diese These von Peter Baader, seinerzeit Leiter der Abteilung Alphabetische Katalogisierung der Deutschen Bibliothek, stammt aus der Zeit vor dem Erscheinen der ersten Auflage (1986) der RSWK und ist heute immer noch genauso aktuell wie im Jahre 1983. Baader warnte vor einer "Zersplitterung" der jeweiligen Regelungen, konnte diese jedoch nicht verhindern, da die RSWK sich letztlich auf etablierte deutsche Schlagwortregelwerke und die Ergebnisse von Abstimmungen durch deutsche Bibliotheksverbünde und Einzelbibliotheken beriefen. Dies geschah nicht zuletzt, um die Akzeptanz der RSWK als neues Einheitsregelwerk zu erhöhen. Zwanzig Jahre später diskutiert die deutschsprachige bibliothekarische Fachwelt endlich ergebnisorientiert über die Angleichung von RAK und RSWK, jetzt allerdings unter Anpassung der RAK an Struktur und Inhalte der Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) bzw. ihres Nachfolgers. Die folgende Darstellung unternimmt den Versuch, auf der Grundlage dieser Prämisse das Modell eines für die Formal- und Inhaltserschließung gemeinsamen deutschen Regelwerks zu skizzieren und die noch bestehenden Unterschiede zu dokumentieren. Zum besseren Verständnis des doch so langwierigen Annäherungsprozesses soll zunächst die bisherige Entwicklung betrachtet werden. Eckpunkte der Vorgeschichte - Die DBI-Kommission für Erschließung und Katalogmanagement (KEK) beschließt 1991 in ihrem Arbeitsprogramm den Abgleich beider Regelwerke und erklärt 1992 ihre Absicht, die Ansetzungen der Personennamen in RAK und RSWK zu harmonisieren. - Die Expertengruppe Online-Kataloge empfiehlt 1994 einheitliche Ansetzungsformen in RAK und RSWK für Personen- bzw. Körperschaftsnamen sowie eine umfassende Bestimmung von Einheitssachtiteln. - Die Expertengruppen RAK und RSWK beschließen 1996, dass bei der Ansetzung von Personen- und Körperschaftsnamen substanzielle Abweichungen zwischen den beiden Regelwerken vorläufig erhalten bleiben und stattdessen unterschiedliche Ansetzungsformen miteinander verknüpft werden sollen. Kurz nach dem Beginn der Diskussion über einen möglichen Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC 21, AACR2) fasst der Standardisierungsausschuss im Juni 2002 den Beschluss zur Angleichung von RAK und RSWK. Ausgangspunkt sollen die Ansetzungsformen von Personen und Körperschaften sein. Im Dezember 2002 wird von einem RAK-RSWK-Expertentreffen vorgeschlagen, bei Regeländerungen die AACR2 zu berücksichtigen, ein gemeinsames Datenformat für PND, GKD und SWD zu entwickeln, den Änderungsaufwand in den Normdateien abzuschätzen und einen Zeitplan für ein gestuftes Vorgehen bei den Regeländerungen zu entwickeln. Im Mai 2004 beschließen die Expertengruppen Formalerschließung, PND und RSWK/SWD bei getrennten und überwiegend unterschiedlichen Regelwerkstexten einheitliche Ansetzungsformen in RAK und RSWK für Personennamen. Der Standardisierungsausschuss erklärt seine Absicht, einen für Formal- und Inhaltserschließung gemeinsamen Regelwerkstext zu veröffentlichen. Im Januar 2005 wird von Vertretern der Expertengruppen ein von der Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung vorgelegtes Arbeitspaket "Gemeinsame Ansetzungsregeln für Körperschaften" (GKR) beschlossen. Im März 2005 legt die Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung ein Konzept zur Entwicklung eines gemeinsamen Normdatenformats vor.
    Type
    a
  2. Managing cataloging and the organization of information : philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century (2000) 0.02 
    0.0152362175 = product of:
  0.030472435 = sum of:
    0.02288488 = weight(_text_:von in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02288488 = score(doc=238,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.1786945 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
    0.007587555 = product of:
      0.022762664 = sum of:
        0.022762664 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022762664 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16809508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in ZfBB 51(2004) H.1, S.54-55 (G. Pflug): "Unter dem wachsenden Einfluss der Informationstechnologie auf den Bibliotheksbereich nimmt die Katalogisierung eine Schlüsselstellung ein. Das vorliegende Werk gliedert sich in zwei Teile. Der erste Abschnitt ist mit »National Libraries« überschrieben, befasst sich jedoch nur mit der Library of Congress und der National Library of Canada. Ihm folgen Artikel über »Libraries around the world«. Dabei fälltjedoch auf, dass diese Studien zwar Bibliotheken in Großbritannien, Australien, Mittel- und Südamerika und selbst Afrika (Botswana) behandeln, nicht jedoch aus Kontinentaleuropa, trotz entsprechender Aktivitäten etwa in den Niederlanden, in Frankreich oder den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Nur DOBIS/LIBIS wird erwähnt, aber nur, weil es für kurze Zeit die kanadische Entwicklung beeinflusst hat. Im zweiten Teil kommen Katalogisierungsfachleute aus vier Spezial- und neun akademischen Bibliotheken - ausschließlich aus Nordamerika und Großbritannien - zu Wort. So enthält das Werk in 22 Beispielen Berichte über individuelle und regionale Lösungen. Dabei steht die Frage im Vordergrund, zu welchen Änderungen in der Katalogisierungs- und Sacherschließungspraxis die neuen elektronischen Techniken geführt haben. So streben z.B. die englischen Hochschulbibliotheken ein koordiniertes System an. Mit dem Übergang der British Library zu MARC 21 wird das Katalogsystem in Großbritannien nachhaltig beeinflusst - um nur zwei nahe liegende Beispiele zu nennen. Insgesamt werden drei Aspekte behandelt, die Automatisierungstechnik; die dabei einzusetzende Kooperation und das Outsourcing - nicht nur durch Übernahme von Daten anderer Bibliotheken oder durch Verbundsysteme, vor allem der Library of Congress, sondern auch durch Buchhandelsfirmen wie Blackwell North America Authority Control Service. In der Frage der Sacherschließung befassen sich die Beiträge mit den im amerikanischen Bereich üblichen Klassifikationssystemen, vor allem der Colon Classification, Dewey in seinen beiden Formen oder der Library of Congress Classification. Für die deutsche Diskussion sind diese Aspekte vor allem wegen des Übergangs der Deutschen Bibliothek in ihrer Nationalbibliografie zur DDC von großem Interesse (vgl. Magda Heiner-Freiling: Die DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. In Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 15. 2003, Nr. 3, S. 8-13). Doch stellen auch die unterschiedlichen Überlegungen zur alphabetischen Katalogisierung, verbunden mit den da zugehörigen Datenbanken, einen interessanten Beitrag zur augenblicklichen Diskussion in Deutschland dar, da auch hier seit einigen Jahren die Katalogisierung nach RAK und ihre Ablösung eine lebhafte Diskussion ausgelöst hat, wie unter anderem der zusammenfassende Beitrag von Elisabeth Niggemann in: Dialog mit Bibliotheken (15. 2003, Nr. 2, S. 4-8) zeigt. Auch die angloamerikanischen und die mit ihnen zum Beispiel in Mexiko, Südamerika oder Australien verbundenen Bibliotheken - das zeigt das Buch deutlich - diskutieren die Frage der alphabetischen Katalogisierung kontrovers. So werden z.B. neben den dominanten AACR-Regeln mit ihrer Weiterentwicklung mehr als zehn andere Katalogisierungssysteme und rund 20 Online-Datenbanken behandelt. Damit liefert das Buch für die Diskussion in Deutschland und die anstehenden Entscheidungen in seiner Grundtendenz wie in den unterschiedlichen-auch widersprüchlichen-Aspekten dereinzelnen Beiträge wertvolle Anregungen."
  3. Eversberg, B.: Zur Zukunft der Katalogisierung : ... jenseits RAK und AACR (2004) 0.01 
    0.014035223 = product of:
  0.028070446 = sum of:
    0.026425181 = weight(_text_:von in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026425181 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.20633863 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
    0.0016452647 = product of:
      0.004935794 = sum of:
        0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004935794 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    "Katalogisierung" klingt in manchen Ohren altmodisch. Man redet heute von "Metadaten"! Gemeint ist aber nichts völlig anderes. Es gibt nur viele neue Formen, Praktiken und Nutzungen, während sich früher Katalogdaten fast nur in Katalogen und Bibliographien befanden. "Metadaten" ist nur ein neuer Oberbegriff, aber in einer Katalogdatenbank haben wir längst mehr und andersartige Datenelemente und Funktionen als in Zettelkatalogen. Es ist notwendig, weiter auszugreifen als es die klassischen Regelwerke, RAK und AACR, getan haben, und deren hergebrachte Konzepte zu überdenken.
    Type
    a
  4. Block, B.; Labner, J.; Rusch, B.: Katalogisierung kooperativ gemacht (2007) 0.01 
    0.013934327 = product of:
  0.027868655 = sum of:
    0.026693465 = weight(_text_:von in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026693465 = score(doc=38,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.2084335 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
    0.001175189 = product of:
      0.003525567 = sum of:
        0.003525567 = weight(_text_:a in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003525567 = score(doc=38,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Haben Sie schon einmal versucht, Ihren fachfremden Bekannten oder Familienangehörigen plausibel zu erklären, warum in Deutschland (die Österreicher mögen diese Verkürzung einen Moment verzeihen und sich mitgenannt fühlen) eine Titelaufnahme zeitgleich mehrfach erstellt wird? Mal unter uns: Wir sind mit unseren ausführlichen Erklärungen regelmäßig gescheitert. Spätestens wenn wir mit unserem Vortrag bei unterschiedlichen Katalogisierungskonventionen und technischen Hindernissen angelangt sind, ist uns unser Gegenüber eingenickt. Unser fachfremdes Gegenüber, versteht sich. Aber je stärker die Katalogisierungsabteilungen in den Bibliotheken schrumpfen und die "pragmatische" der "perfekten" Titelaufnahme den Rang abläuft, desto mehr Fragen kommen auch von Bibliothekarlnnen: Warum lassen sich die Aufnahmen nicht aus anderen Verbünden übernehmen? Warum nicht die verknüpften Normdaten? Warum existieren nach wie vor unterschiedliche Erschließungspraktiken? Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme hat sich 2005 dieser Thematik angenommen und ein Projekt mit dem Namen "Kooperative Neukatalogisierung" ins Leben gerufen. Es sollten Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Datenübernahme zwischen den Verbünden für die Formal- und Sacherschließung erarbeitet werden mit dem Ziel, die Eigenkatalogisierungsquoten zu senken sowie Anreicherungen für bestehende Datensätze (Sacherschließung, Links zu Rezensionen und Inhaltsverzeichnissen usw.) zu ermöglichen. In einem zweiten Paket sollte die Angleichung bzw. Vereinheitlichung von differierenden Regelwerks- und Formatanwendungen erreicht und ein gemeinsamer Qualitätsstandard in den Verbünden vereinbart werden. An diesem ambitionierten Unterfangen sind die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme (die Verbünde BVB, GBV, hbz, HeBIS, KOBV, OBV, SWB und ZDB und die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB)) beteiligt. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek hat in diesem Projekt eine besondere Ausgangslage. Während die Nutzung der Daten der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek in den Verbünden die Regel ist, betritt die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Neuland, wenn sie im Rahmen dieses Projektes prüft, in welchem Umfang Verbunddaten für die eigene Arbeit genutzt werden können.
    Type
    a
  5. Eversberg, B.: Was sollen Bibliothekskataloge? (2002) 0.01 
    0.011325077 = product of:
  0.04530031 = sum of:
    0.04530031 = weight(_text_:von in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04530031 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.35372335 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Sinn von Katalogen und Erschließung im Umfeld der Debatte RAK - AACR, MAB - MARC
  6. Eversberg, B.: Navigare necesse est : oder: Wie knüpft man die richtigen Beziehungen? (2006) 0.01 
    0.010677386 = product of:
  0.042709544 = sum of:
    0.042709544 = weight(_text_:von in 1948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042709544 = score(doc=1948,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.3334936 = fieldWeight in 1948, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1948)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Zu den heute geforderten Funktionen von Katalogsystemen gehört das Navigieren. Auch wer dieses Wort nicht kennt, navigiert täglich, und zwar bei jedem Klick auf einen Hyperlink. Es tut somit not, dem Nutzer Hyperlinks zu präsentieren - damit er zu "Ressourcen" surfen kann, die mit dem vorher gefundenen Dokument irgendwie zusammenhängen. Hyperlinks machen sich nicht von selbst, es muß etwas dahinterstecken, am besten ein Konzept, das die Beziehungen zwischen den Dokumenten in praktikabler, plausibler Weise abbildet. Wer keine oder die falschen Beziehungen hat, den bestraft das Leben - in Katalogen ist das nicht anders.
  7. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.01 
    0.008410187 = product of:
  0.03364075 = sum of:
    0.03364075 = product of:
      0.05046112 = sum of:
        0.004935794 = weight(_text_:a in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004935794 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
        0.045525327 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045525327 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16809508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  8. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.01 
    0.0065036183 = product of:
  0.026014473 = sum of:
    0.026014473 = product of:
      0.078043416 = sum of:
        0.078043416 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.078043416 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16809508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  9. Babeu, A.: Building a "FRBR-inspired" catalog : the Perseus digital library experience (2008) 0.00 
    9.102976E-4 = product of:
  0.0036411905 = sum of:
    0.0036411905 = product of:
      0.010923571 = sum of:
        0.010923571 = weight(_text_:a in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010923571 = score(doc=2429,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.
    Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.
  10. Taniguchi, S.: Conceptual modeling of component parts of bibliographic resources in cataloging (2003) 0.00 
    8.63584E-4 = product of:
  0.003454336 = sum of:
    0.003454336 = product of:
      0.010363008 = sum of:
        0.010363008 = weight(_text_:a in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010363008 = score(doc=4442,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper examines differences in modeling component parts of bibliographic resources between two conceptual models in cataloging, as a continuation of the previous study that proposed a model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity. First, the model by IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) was examined from the viewpoint of modeling component parts when each part in itself is a resource to be described. The examination is done on two types of component parts, a content part and a document part, which are different in terms of whether they are physically independent. This results in different structures for these two component types. Secondly, by applying the viewpoint to the model that the author proposed earlier, it has become clear that both component types can be modeled basically in the same manner, indicating the model's superiority in consistency to the FRBR model in this respect.
    Type
    a
  11. Taniguchi, S.: ¬A conceptual model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity in cataloging (2002) 0.00 
    8.63584E-4 = product of:
  0.003454336 = sum of:
    0.003454336 = product of:
      0.010363008 = sum of:
        0.010363008 = weight(_text_:a in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010363008 = score(doc=4463,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper proposes a conceptual model for cataloging which gives primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity, with the aim of approaching critical issues in cataloging, such as the so-called "format variations" and "content versus carrier" issues. The term "expression" is defined as "the intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form of alpha-numeric, musical, or choreographic notation, etc." In this paper, the model by the IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is first re-examined and at the same time the outline of a new model giving primacy to expression-level entity is illustrated by indicating differences from the FRBR model. Second, by applying the concept "user tasks," found in the FRBR model, to the new model outlined in this paper, a scenario on how entities are used by users is created. Third, some examples of bibliographic record equivalents in line with the new model are shown.
    Type
    a
  12. Byrd, J.; Charbonneau, G.; Charbonneau, M.; Courtney, A.; Johnson, E.; Leonard, K.; Morrison, A.; Mudge, S.; O'Bryan, A.; Opasik, S.; Riley, J.; Turchyn, S.: ¬A white paper on the future of cataloging at Indiana University (2006) 0.00 
    8.309842E-4 = product of:
  0.0033239368 = sum of:
    0.0033239368 = product of:
      0.0099718105 = sum of:
        0.0099718105 = weight(_text_:a in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0099718105 = score(doc=3225,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.
  13. Smiraglia, R.P.: Rethinking what we catalog : documents as cultural artifacts (2008) 0.00 
    7.7731453E-4 = product of:
  0.0031092581 = sum of:
    0.0031092581 = product of:
      0.009327774 = sum of:
        0.009327774 = weight(_text_:a in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009327774 = score(doc=789,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.
    Type
    a
  14. Coyle, K.; Hillmann, D.: Resource Description and Access (RDA) : cataloging rules for the 20th century (2007) 0.00 
    7.196534E-4 = product of:
  0.0028786135 = sum of:
    0.0028786135 = product of:
      0.00863584 = sum of:
        0.00863584 = weight(_text_:a in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00863584 = score(doc=2525,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.
    Type
    a
  15. Eversberg, B.: Zur Theorie der Bibliothekskataloge und Suchmaschinen (2003) 0.00 
    7.051135E-4 = product of:
  0.002820454 = sum of:
    0.002820454 = product of:
      0.008461362 = sum of:
        0.008461362 = weight(_text_:a in 5466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008461362 = score(doc=5466,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5466, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5466)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  16. Rijk Spanhoff, E. de: Principle issues : catalog paradigms, old and new (2002) 0.00 
    7.051135E-4 = product of:
  0.002820454 = sum of:
    0.002820454 = product of:
      0.008461362 = sum of:
        0.008461362 = weight(_text_:a in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008461362 = score(doc=5481,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Recent attempts to assess the adequacy of AACR as a descriptive cataloging code for the online environment have focused attention on cataloging principles. This paper looks at some old and new attempts to isolate the fundamental principles underlying AACR. It considers catalog objectives, principles, and rules and looks at how these relate to one another. It analyzes the relationship of these principles and rules to the final product, the library catalog, pointing out differences (in this regard) between catalogs that are paper-based and those that are electronic. Finally, it comments on the present effort of the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR to formulate a statement of principles to be included in a new introduction to AACR.
    Type
    a
  17. Gorman, M.: Control o caos bibliográfico : un programa para los servcos bibliográficos nacionales del siglo XXI (2004) 0.00 
    5.875945E-4 = product of:
  0.002350378 = sum of:
    0.002350378 = product of:
      0.007051134 = sum of:
        0.007051134 = weight(_text_:a in 3762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007051134 = score(doc=3762,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3762, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3762)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  18. Guerrini, M.: ¬The functions of the catalogue from ICCP to FRBR (2000) 0.00 
    5.875945E-4 = product of:
  0.002350378 = sum of:
    0.002350378 = product of:
      0.007051134 = sum of:
        0.007051134 = weight(_text_:a in 3947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007051134 = score(doc=3947,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3947, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3947)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Type
    a
  19. Lubetzky, S.: Principles of cataloging (2001) 0.00 
    5.875945E-4 = product of:
  0.002350378 = sum of:
    0.002350378 = product of:
      0.007051134 = sum of:
        0.007051134 = weight(_text_:a in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007051134 = score(doc=2627,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This report constitutes Phase I of a two-part study; a Phase II report will discuss subject cataloging. Phase I is concerned with the materials of a library as individual records (or documents) and as representations of certain works by certain authors--that is, with descriptive, or bibliographic, cataloging. Discussed in the report are (1) the history, role, function, and oblectives .of the author-and-title catalog; (2) problems and principles of descriptive catalogng, including the use and function of "main entry, the principle of authorship, and the process and problems of cataloging print and nonprint materials; (3) organization of the catalog; and (4) potentialities of automation. The considerations inherent in bibliographic cataloging, such as the distinction between the "book" and the "work," are said to be so elemental that they are essential not only to the effective control of library's materials but also to that of the information contained in the materials. Because of the special concern with information, the author includes a discussion of the "Bibliographic Dimensions of Information Control," 'prepared in collaboration with Robert M. Hayes, which also appears in "American Documentation," VOl.201 July 1969, p. 247-252.
  20. Miksa, S.D.: Educators: what are the cataloging issues students get excited about? : professional and intellectual appeals of cataloging and students' misconceptions of cataloging (2008) 0.00 
    5.8168895E-4 = product of:
  0.0023267558 = sum of:
    0.0023267558 = product of:
      0.0069802674 = sum of:
        0.0069802674 = weight(_text_:a in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069802674 = score(doc=786,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the professional and intellectual appeals demonstrated by cataloging students, as well as some common misconceptions. Given the current digital environment and the "Amazoogle" effect, students face many challenges when striving to complete a basic course in descriptive and subject cataloging. In the process, they face issues of varieties of information objects, how to tame tools such as AACR2 and LCSH, and how MARC encoding fits into the overall process of cataloging. They also must learn to re-conceptualize their ideas of copy cataloging and learn to appreciate the authoritative power that comes with using and applying cataloger's judgment.
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes